Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices • Hacker News Board

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#81

Post by tikhonj » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 4:31 AM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #68

sounds wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

@dangrossman you've just made exactly the point vena was making: "it only prevents the end users from doing things." Using OEM requirements for Windows-certified ARM devices is very similar to the bundling requirements Microsoft was convicted of in US v Microsoft. Also, what you're suggesting with "The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone" places the costs on the OEM, where margins are razor thin. Be fair…

How about you try iOS where you can't even install a competing browser, forget about one being bundled. Why is that legal? Because Windows was deemed a monopoly in the late 1990s. Since Win32 programs won't even run on ARM tablets, I fail to see how what you point out is relevant at all. >Also, what you're suggesting with "The OEM can have two versions of every tablet/phone" places the costs on the OEM, where margins…

Just because Apple is more evil than Microsoft does not me we should give Microsoft a free pass. This is exactly the sort of detrimental behavior everybody except Apple/Microsoft would be better off without.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#82

Post by cooldeal » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 4:36 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #64

cooldeal wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Microsoft's penetration on laptops and netbooks means that they have the ability to block out competing operating systems ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. >Regardless, I even granted that there isn't a business reason for them to be friendly to competing operation systems, it's just disappointing to se…

ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant. Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the mark…

>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant

It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines?

>Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the market by preventing users from upgrading their OS (as has been traditionally available on Microsoft-targeted computing platforms) through the same kind of license agreements with OEMs that got them into trouble with Be.

Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader? Can Microsoft claim they're being anti-competitively blocked for shipping an OS for the iPad? How is it legal for the Kindle Fire and Nook to ship with locked bootloaders?

>It is not the responsibility of users and OS vendors to preserve the flawed business model of their competitors. Microsoft's competitors shouldn't be forced out of the operating system market just because Microsoft wants to sell its own licenses below "cost" (whatever that means for something that has virtually no cost to duplicate).

Similarly, Microsoft should be allowed to sell the software they create on their own terms.

No cost to duplicate doesn't mean there was no cost to create it. Or do you propose that the first copy cost $5 billion and then the rest are freely reproduced and distributed?

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#83

Post by hetman » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 4:40 AM UTC

trotsky wrote: post #71

I may be missing something, but it doesn't sound like an OEM is prevented from including additional keys, from say cannonical and redhat, or even simply an OEM key that is used to sign a generic boot loader like grub.

Meaning this is still much more open than the iPad.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#84

Post by cooldeal » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 4:59 AM UTC

sjs wrote: post #33

recoiledsnake wrote: post #2

iPad has or had a monopoly in the tablet market, but where are/were the cries for an open bootloader? Where were the complaints to governments? Motorola and HTC phones/tablets ship with locked bootloaders while leveraging the hard work of F/OSS developers for free. Not to mention the Nook tablet/Kindle Fire which ship with a locked bootloader who get a free pass. Note that this will be the same set of people who will…

People have hacked iPads and iPhones to run Android. And nobody actually uses it because there is no hardware back button, etc. When hardware and software are a cohesive unit it's hard to run something generic on the hardware, or run the software on some other hardware. That is not the case for Windows, Linux, and Android, which is why people feel differently about that ecosystem.

Windows 8 ARM tablets won't have back, home or menu buttons either.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#85

Post by eropple » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 5:00 AM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #82

nitrogen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant. Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the mark…

>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…

> is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines?

http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/opera-mini-web-browser/id3637...

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#86

Post by melling » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 5:02 AM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #41

melling wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't seriously be surprised by this. Microsoft can't be trusted until their desktop monopoly is destroyed. I guess the US vs Microsoft is 14 years old this year. Maybe we've all forgotten how Microsoft destroyed all other PC OS'es and how Windows wouldn't run without Internet Explorer; Microsoft claimed it was part of the OS and there was no way to remove it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microso…

>It shouldn't be a PC vs Mac world today. I thought we were living in a post-PC world? Restricting Microsoft here would unfairly advantage Apple's continuing monopoly of tablets.

Apple doesn't have a monopoly on tablets and Google doesn't have a monopoly on search, but people always throw them out as such.

Microsoft, however, has the monopolies (plural).

Btw, here are the numbers to prove that the iPad is not a monopoly.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/dec/25/ipad-tablet...

Wouldn't it be great if Windows only had a 65%-70% market share?

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#87

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 5:02 AM UTC

cooldeal wrote: post #82

nitrogen wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ARM laptops and netbooks and PCs won't run x86 apps, so I fail to see how MS's penetration will allow them to block out competing operating systems. The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant. Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a product that anticompetitively excludes Linux from the mark…

>The ability to run x86 apps is irrelevant It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines? >Full-fledged Linux desktop distributions have been available for ARM desktops, laptops, nettops, etc. for a long time. Microsoft is entering this existing market with a produc…

It is very relevant. Can you tell why the EU requires Windows to display a browser selection box on first boot to Europeans, but is okay with iOS totally BANNING the use of non-Safari browser engines?

I'm not European, so I'm not very well informed on their approach to antitrust issues, but my guess would be that either they just haven't gotten enough complaints about/gotten around to prosecuting Apple, or Apple's lack of a monopoly in their respective market gives them greater leeway.

I could imagine them saying, "It's not the processor that's relevant. It's whether something can be classified as a computer or an appliance." Would you say that a Linux- or BeOS- or OS/2-based PC should be treated differently from the same PC running Windows, just because it can't run "x86" [Windows] apps?

Why is it not anti-competitive for Apple to ship their hardware with a completely locked bootloader? Can Microsoft claim they're being anti-competitively blocked for shipping an OS for the iPad? How is it legal for the Kindle Fire and Nook to ship with locked bootloaders?

So far the phone/"giant phone" tablet and netbook/tablet PC/desktop markets have been treated differently. With traditional forms of computing, there is a greater expectation of flexibility of the system. Maybe that will change to the point where consumers expect to be able to install their own OS on a smartphone as well, and I for one hope it does.

Similarly, Microsoft should be allowed to sell the software they create on their own terms.

I agree, so long as those terms don't include explicit or de facto exclusions of their competitors from the market. What we're discussing now is exactly such an exclusion.

No cost to duplicate doesn't mean there was no cost to create it. Or do you propose that the first copy cost $5 billion and then the rest are freely reproduced and distributed?

I'm fully aware of the separate costs of creation versus distribution. I am a hardware/software startup founder myself. My point is that Microsoft needs to figure out how to make money without anticompetitively excluding others from the market. Their decision to sell anything below their actual costs is simply not my problem as a consumer, nor should it be any government's problem.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#88

Post by eropple » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 5:05 AM UTC

nitrogen wrote: post #72

ekianjo wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It shouldn't be a PC vs Mac world today. It should be PC, Mac, BeOS, OS/2, Linux, etc. There are a number of small, niche systems around the world that few people know about. When something gets broad popularity it is natural to see only a few systems get the cake, the cream of the cake and the cherry on it while the others get the crumbs. "He who has more, gets more" if you know the saying. In the 80s you had a fr…

Fast Market growth favors big players. The current OS landscape has little to do with the size of the players, and everything to do with back-room deals between Microsoft and OEMs to e.g. prevent OEMs from loading BeOS on their systems.

I'm sorry, but this is Amiga syndrome.

Beyond all else, you know why BeOS isn't loaded on systems today? Because it didn't run Windows software. You can assert that Microsoft certainly did not help it along with its OEM deals, but BeOS didn't do itself any favors along the way at any point.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#89

Post by lgeek » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 5:08 AM UTC

brudgers wrote: post #58

kenjackson wrote: post #47

First, tihs document is about HW Certification. You can ship an ARM-based system that doesn't follow these rules, just won't be certified by MS -- much like many Android devices aren't Google certified. Furthermore, MS actually bent over backwards on x86 and required for certification that the option to disable secure boot be provided (they could have been silent on this issue): "Enable/Disable Secure Boot. On non-AR…

It appears that ARM devices can fallover to legacy BIOS mode to support non UEFI OS's. From page 109 of windows8-hardware-cert-requirements-system.pdf : System.Fundamentals.Firmware.UEFIDefaultBoot Target Feature: System.Fundamentals.Firmware Title: All client systems must be able to boot into UEFI boot mode and attempt to boot into this mode by default Applicable OS Versions:  Windows 8 Client x86  Windows 8 Clien…

There's no BIOS on ARM. BIOS is x86-only.

Re: Microsoft confirms UEFI fears, locks down ARM devices

#90

Post by nitrogen » Fri, Jan 13, 2012, 5:12 AM UTC

eropple wrote: post #88

nitrogen wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fast Market growth favors big players. The current OS landscape has little to do with the size of the players, and everything to do with back-room deals between Microsoft and OEMs to e.g. prevent OEMs from loading BeOS on their systems.

I'm sorry, but this is Amiga syndrome. Beyond all else, you know why BeOS isn't loaded on systems today? Because it didn't run Windows software. You can assert that Microsoft certainly did not help it along with its OEM deals, but BeOS didn't do itself any favors along the way at any point.

BeOS had an agreement with Hitachi to distribute BeOS on some of their systems. Microsoft also had an agreement with Hitachi (and others?) that prevented Hitachi from displaying an operating system selection menu on boot. That is why we do not have BeOS today, and is only one example of the countless times Microsoft underhandedly and illegally (as determined by courts on multiple continents) harmed consumers and competitors.

Read the first page of this: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/exhibits/1584.pdf

Relevant section:

  The BeOS is bundled with the machine and is already pre-installed
  on the hard drive.  As shipped from the factory, your FLORA Prius
  will NOT boot the BeOS...

Edited to add: We can never tell what would have happened to these competing systems without Microsoft's manipulation of the market, but Microsoft's involvement in their demise is a historically and legally documented fact.